United States v. Raymond Jarlik Bell

concurring:

There is a certain value in saying what is necessary and no more. Here, although I have no quarrel with the bottom line result, I am concerned that the majority goes further than needed in announcing, for the first time anywhere, that a pro se criminal defendant has no right to be advised of the opportunity to present closing argument.

I agree, given the litigation history of this case, that the failure to ask Raymond Bell if he wished to make a closing statement to the jury was not error. Certainly the better practice would have been to ask, particularly in the circumstances of this case where the district court urged the jury to listen carefully to the arguments of the prosecution and Bell’s represented co-defendant who both proceeded to make arguments attempting to undermine Bell’s case.

I would affirm, but on the narrower grounds that Bell’s non-participation during the course of the trial and his failure to object or request argument effectively waived his right to make a closing argument. I would not say, as I think the majority does, that a defendant in a criminal case, pro se or otherwise, need not be *1260 advised of an opportunity to make closing remarks…

Opinion by Judge GOULD; Concurrence by Judge HAWKINS.

OPINION

Raymond Bell (“Bell”) appeals from his jury convictions for making false, fictitious, and fraudulent claims to the United States Treasury under 18 U.S.C. § 287 , assisting in the filing of false tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (2), criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 (3), and mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . Bell also appeals the district court’s supervised release conditions imposed as part of his sentence. We must decide (1) whether the district court committed reversible error under the Sixth Amendment when it did not prompt Bell to present a closing argument; (2) whether the government provided sufficient evidence to prove that Bell assisted Steven Bell in the filing of fraudulent tax returns; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in requiring Bell to abstain from alcohol and drug consumption and participate in treatment as conditions of his supervised release.

I

This case concerns a tax scheme involving false Form 1099-OIDs. In the scheme, a taxpayer would file Form 1099-OIDs that “falsely state an amount of income tax has been withheld ... and the taxpayer then relies on that false…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30163 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 3:11-cr-05407-

RBL-

RAYMOND LEO JARLIK BELL, AKA

Raymond Leo Bell, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 28, 2014—Seattle, Washington

Filed October 22, 2014

Before: Michael D. Hawkins, Susan P. Graber, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Gould; Concurrence by Judge Hawkins SUMMARY*

Criminal Law

The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s judgment, and remanded, in a case in which the defendant was convicted of making false, fictitious, and fraudulent claims to the United States Treasury; assisting in the filing of false tax returns; criminal contempt; and mail fraud.

The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that the district court committed reversible error under the Sixth Amendment by not prompting him to present a closing argument, where the defendant, who…